Spreading Out the NFL

I’ve been critical of run-oriented-read-option (“RORO”), spread offenses in the college game for awhile now, mostly because they all seem so painfully simplistic and don’t adequately prepare college QBs for the NFL game. But there is something that I just can’t escape.

It works.

I should qualify that, if done right, with the right personnel and the right coaches, it works. If a team is not dedicated to the offense, then the offense will flounder. It doesn’t work if teams just treat the spread as a different formation. It’s not the same as going from a split back formation to an i-formation. It’s different. It’s a philosophy. It’s a way of playing the game. If your linemen, running backs, quarterbacks, and receivers are not well-schooled in spread philosophies, then the plays feel like throw-ins, or rather throw-aways. Teams try to hastily implement these plays because they see the success that teams like Oregon have had with it. But of course they cannot execute it as well as Oregon because it’s just a part of their offense, it’s not the offense. How can you be as good at something if you’re not 100% dedicated to it?

Look no further than the disastrous fumble that Jake Locker and Jesse Callier had in the Apple Cup. That is a run-of-the mill play in a spread offense. It’s routine. The routine part is the “mesh-point” between the QB and the RB. I know that the fly sweep has been a larger part of the UW offense toward the latter stages of the year, and they had several games and practices to get it right (and for the most part, they have), but think of it this way, Oregon runs some variation of that play (either to the WR on the fly sweep or to RBs LaMichael James/Kenjon Barner standing next to Darron Thomas) on nearly every snap. Of course Oregon is going to be better at it.

In a related story, Oregon and Auburn, two 100% spread-offense teams, are playing for the BCS National Championship next month. And for a really good display of how something so simple can be effective, just look at Oregon’s last drive (starts at 8:50) against Cal.

Oregon, up 15-13, gets the ball with 9:25 left in the game and proceeds to methodically move down the field on Cal by running essentially the same zone-read option play on 18 downs of a 20-play drive (the two exceptions were a Darron Thomas pass for seven yards and a kneeldown to end the game). It’s not as if Cal didn’t see it coming. Oregon did nothing to hide what they were doing and still were able to kill over nine minutes to preserve the victory. Pretty outstanding stuff.

As for the spread of the RORO spread, let’s look at the teams who have played for the national title in the last five years:

Of those 10 separate teams, five run a pro-style offense: USC, Ohio State–well, “pro in the 80s,” LSU, and Alabama. Oklahoma runs a spread offense, but it’s more like a throwing-oriented, Tom Brady/Peyton Manning spread rather than a RORO Oregon/Auburn spread. The previous Texas and Florida offenses are very similar (no, not the same, but similar) to the Oregon and Auburn offenses. With the exception of 2007, every year in the past five has featured a RORO spread offense in the national title game. But this is the first year where both teams are RORO spread offenses. (meaning we are in for an exciting game and also one that will move along really quickly because the clock will keep moving).

The RORO spread is definitely a trend that we’re going to see continue in high school football, college football, and one that should gain more traction in the NFL as a full-time offense. While I doubt that will happen, here’s why it should: Legitimate, elite-level, Super-Bowl caliber QBs are rare and expensive. Despite the fact that some college teams run pro-style offenses (and one RORO spread team, Florida, is going back to the pro style), many are running some kind of spread and as that number remains constant or continues to grow, the pool of traditional “dropback” passers is going to become more shallow and we’ll continue to see spread QBs drafted to play in non-spread offenses and, predictably, struggle.

At present, I see only seven QBs in the NFL that would fit the above elite-level description. They are:

Tom Brady, New England

Drew Brees, New Orleans

Ben Roethlisberger

Peyton Manning, Indianapolis

Aaron Rodgers, Green Bay

Michael Vick, Philadelphia

Philip Rivers, San Diego

I think these next six guys are very, very good, but I don’t see them as the reason that their teams would win a Super Bowl (today). Of course their teams could win the Super Bowl (and in Manning’s case, his already has), but it won’t be because of them… if that makes sense.

Matt Ryan, Atlanta

Eli Manning, New York Giants

Sam Bradford, St. Louis

Matt Cassel, Kansas City

Jay Cutler, Chicago

Josh Freeman, Tampa Bay

I left off Tony Romo, Matt Schaub, and Joe Flacco because I honestly don’t think they’ll ever get it done. I left off Matthew Stafford because I don’t think he’s ever going to make it through a 16-game season (much less 18). I left off everyone else because I don’t think they’re good enough.

There are 32 teams in the league and only seven (in my opinion) truly elite QBs…and yet a team still has to fork over a huge part of its salary cap to a QB who is not good enough. Seems counterproductive.

To me, it’s all about supply and demand. Unless you’re fortunate enough to draft the “next great NFL QB” (Andrew Luck? Who else, really?), then it might behoove and NFL team to take the drastic step of rethinking its offensive philosophy. It’s a radical move and one that I’m sure won’t happen because while the NFL evolves, it does so at an evolutionary pace, which is to say generationally.

Right now, passing is en vogue. At the end of last season, everyone marveled about how many QBs threw for over 4,000 yards (10) the most in any NFL season. We have to go all the way back to 1997 to find a year in which no QBs threw for 4,000 yards (6 in 2008, 7 in 2007, 5 in 2006, 2 in 2005, 5 in 2004, 2 in 2003, 4 in 2002, 2 in 2001, 3 in 2000, 5 in 1999, 2 in 1998, 0 in 1997), and I see that trend continuing–for the teams with elite QBs and those without.

However, for those teams without an elite QB it might make sense to shift to a RORO spread offense with a trio of similarly-situated QBs. It would be daring and inventive and may ultimately fail miserably, but if a team dedicated its finite financial resources on other positions on the field and paid appropriate levels for their running QBs, they might see some success.

Based on 2009 numbers (source: USA Today Salary Database), the cap number of starting QBs was around $8.3 million (with a low of under 500k for Carolina’s Matt Moore and a high of $21M for Peyton Manning). Based on those same 2009 numbers, I selected nine current NFL receivers who could play QB in an NFL RORO spread offense. Those guys are:

Arnaz Battle, Josh Cribbs, Brad Smith, Julian Edleman,
Kelley Washington, Antwaan Randle El, Hines Ward, Percy Harvin, and Anquan Boldin. All played QB at some point in their careers, either in college or in both college and high school. The average cap number of these nine is a little under $2.3M.

Here are the arguments against this idea and my retorts:

The NFL game is too fast
Compared to the college game, yes it is. But despite the aerial assault, teams still run the ball. This would just add an extra element, a dangerous runner who happens to be the QB.

Running QBs can never last in the NFL because they’ll get injured
This argument has a little more merit, which is why I’d suggest that any team daring enough to switch to this system would have to employ three QBs with the same running/throwing skillset; just as you would with running backs. So the dropoff would not be as steep from QB1 to QB3 (it’s much easier to find a running back/wide receiver who can throw a bit than an elite-level QB). Also, I am not saying that a QB has to run the ball on every down, but the legitimate threat that he might needs to be there. Again, running backs get hit on every play, and guys who can play this type of QB role will likely be built for it. Also, as I noted above, these guys can be had for a fraction of the cost of a conventional QB.

But wait, if these guys are going to be playing QB, won’t they cost more?
Maybe. But maybe not. I’d argue that their pay would be more in line with RBs and WRs (perhaps a bit more) than QBs, especially if the dropoff to their backup is less severe than an elite-level passing QB to his backup…

Defenses will simply take away the run, forcing QBs to throw
They might, but if the offense line up in nearly the same formation each time and can run or pass out of it, I don’t see that as an issue. It would be, of course, if the QB cannot throw at all, which wouldn’t be an issue because why would a team put a guy at QB who cannot throw at an NFL level? (Arizona Cardinals coaching staff notwithstanding).

Anyway, just a thought. The wildcat caught on with some teams, but is largely just a gimmick. Until a team completely dedicates itself to this type of offense, we’ll never know if it has a chance to be successful. There are a crop of upcoming QBs who fit the description: Cam Newton, Terrelle Pryor (who has been miscast in his present role), Colin Kaepernick, Tyrod Taylor, and maybe even Jake Locker (who physically could be either type of QB, but, strangely, despite his burliness has shown a proclivity for injury).

Plus, doing so might get Chip Kelly out of Oregon and that would be a good thing for the other teams in the Pac 12 (kidding, I want Kelly to stay because he’s clearly a top-shelf head coach and the more the better in the Pac 12…competition is a good thing, even if it means your team has to lose every once in awhile.